from the but-of-course dept

There was a report a few weeks back noting that WIPO had been in favor (pdf) of allowing the Pirate Party International to be designated as an accredited "observer" to WIPO meetings (which would allow them to participate as an non-governmental organization, but without voting powers). However, it appears that the official decision on this has now been delayed because of objections from Swiss, French and US (who else?) officials:

This morning, under agenda item 6, the WIPO General Assemblies decided to defer a decision until 2013 on the application for accreditation by Pirate Parties International. I was told that the US, Switzerland the France raised objections in the informal consultations, and that some other European countries wanted to raise objections, but found it awkward given the recent success of domestic Pirate Parties in national elections. The USA said it asked for a hold on the decision until WIPO could decide if it wanted to accept political parties as WIPO observers. One delegate said European countries were concerned that the Pirate Parties would take "political action" back home when they disagreed with positions taken by the official delegates at the WIPO meetings.

While it is a legitimate question as to whether or not political parties should count as NGOs, the whole thing still feels pretty questionable. As Jamie Love notes, it just makes WIPO look like it's afraid of the Pirate Party.

KEI's view is that the decision to block the Pirate Parties International application made WIPO look even more captured by right holders than it actually is. To the extent that intellectual property rights issues become seen as political rather than simply technical matters, it may be possible to have broader, deeper and more useful debates on the purpose and performance of the intellectual property rights system. Why? Because many of the technical staff at the government levels are caught up in a system where responsiveness to right-holder interests is key to promotions or job retention, and the robust revolving door with industry creates incentives to be anti-consumer.

In other words, another blown opportunity to try to move things forward, rather than staring longingly at the past.

Meanwhile, others are pointing out that the Pirate Parties International appears to meet all the criteria, and thus it is completely ridiculous to delay their observer status:

“If the NGO’s application falls within a plain wording of the rules and regulations defining what NGOs may be accredited, then the application should be granted,” he said. “From our perspective, what harm can there be for the secretariat of a political party to be an observer at WIPO? If anything, it seems to us this will lead to a better understanding by that secretariat of the international dimension of IP public policy, which is no bad thing.”

The whole thing seems like a typical negative reaction to the party simply because of its name, without any recognition of what it actually stands for, driven by pressure from the US. WIPO looking like a US stooge yet again? Not a huge surprise.

WIPO brand tissue

I always immediately think, just for a moment, that WIPO must be a brand of bathroom tissue until I remember what it stands for. Then I remember that it is not something that is worthy or deserving of being elevated to such a usage.

I don't think that they are scared of the Pirate Party in and of itself. The are concerned that every step of the way alone the PP people would be waving their arms and making impassioned speeches that would waste time and not advance anything.

Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

Let's say someone called themselves the Racist Party. I think it's fair to assume that they might be racists.

They chose the name "Pirate Party". It wasn't given to them. They could have chosen a milquetoast name like the Central Patriotism Party or the New Greatness Party. But no. They love to go to parties with fancy Professors and shock the guests with their attitudes. They love all of the acclaim it brings them.

And the fact is that to many creators, they are just as much a pirate as the folks in Somalia. I realize that the folks on this blog like to pretend that there's some distinction between taking the hard work of a farmer and taking the hard work of a writer/singer/director/actor/etc, but many people don't feel that way.

I look at these guys the way one might look at the Racist Party. I say, "They are pirates. They want to take by force without asking permission."

So you can pretend that the name is just a gimmick, but many of think it's a pretty apt description of what they profess and many of us hate them for the disrepect they show toward our hard work.

this is nothing less than victimisation and done purely to preserve the entertainment industries ruling what happens and prevent any changes, more likely than not for the better from happening. basically, the typical reaction. if you cant adapt and innovate, prevent anyone else from doing so. if you cant look to the future and progress, do whatever you can to stop everyone else

Re:

Waste time from doing what exactly? That's the part that should scare people who can think several steps ahead in this game.

It's great to say that the PP just be dragging their heels from the pure, unadulterated progress that WIPO will be making unanimously, without actually thinking about what kind of progress WIPO will be making without some kind of dissenting voice in the giant pro-IP echo chamber that most "intellectual property" organizations, most US organizations, and even some TD posters are a part of.

Speaking of echo chambers, I noticed bob just made a post, but I'm probably not going to read it because I can guess exactly what it's going to say by just listening to the echos of his other posts long past.

Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

The term 'pirate' in its modern incarnation was applied to people by members of the copyright industry for various different reasons, some were copyright infringement others were simply actions that these people did not want happening.

It could be said that the Pirate Party are simply using the name their viewpoints have been branded with.

Re: WIPO brand tissue

Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

The problem with your analogy is that it's not analogous. There is a movement among people that feel that copyright has gone too far. They've joined together into a political party to push back.

Did you know that, in the US, literature and music were originally not covered by copyright?

Did you know that, in the US, there was no copyright covering performances. You could perform any song or play you wanted and didn't have to pay the author a dime. Copyright only covered the physical published work.

Now it's nearly impossible to go a day without violating copyright. (http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/11/how-long-could-you-last-without-infringing-a-copyright/) It's gone too far. And it needs to change. And the people who make up the Pirate Bay have a right to fight for that change.

And just to make this clear, they did not chose the name "Pirate." The copyright industry did. Technically they're "infringers" but for nearly a century the copyright industry has been pushing the "pirate" moniker, so the Party chose it ironically.

Re:

Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

Think past your nose bobby. The name is indicative of what they stand for yes but it is a term foisted upon those who think injustice is being done at the behest of copyright maximalists by copyright maximalists. What they stand for is not downloading all the free stuff you can, it's more about righting what is wrong.

Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

Even if the term was originally applied by the evil RIAA, they didn't have to choose it for their own. They could have called themselves the "Infringement Party" or the "Free Music Party" or any of a 1000 different names that captured the larger point that Mike would like to believe they are trying to make.

In my experiences with the Pirate Party, they're young, inexperienced pawns. If you ask them about the piracy off of Somalia, they blather on with philosophical distinctions that just confuse many people. Why are they so obsessed with taking the hard work of artists while they're quite willing to respect the hard work of the farmer? It all gets murky.

They can't have it both ways. They're immature fools who just want attention. That's why they chose the name. They have no real plan for helping people work together. They just cling to the idea that somehow everyone will keep creating music and art even if it's immediately placed in the public domain.

Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

But they did choose the name of the party. They could have called themselves the "Infringement Goodness Party" or the "Infinite Digital Goods Party" but they didn't. They chose to adopt the name given to people who take by force without asking permission and they're fools if they think that people won't take them at their word.

That's what we're talking about. The rest of your comment has been debated before ad nauseum. You seem to believe that people will continue to create even if the government will just take their work immediately and give it to the non-workers, but I can point to a zillion experiments over the years where it never worked out that well. But hey, you can go on and read John Reed and keep believing that you've seen the future and it works.

Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

What injustice? It's an insult to the real victims around the world to use the word "injustice" to describe the fact that some Hollywood studio won't let you watch their movie without paying for it. What a cry baby.

Their view of righting what is wrong is to just take the hard work of the artists and declare that it's all been nationalized. Anyone can have it. Countries have tried to nationalize sections of the economy before and it always ends badly. It's a guarantee that the section will wither and die.

There are perfectly nice ways to right the wrong. There are plenty of nice licenses like the GPL, the BSD or the CC. If you believe in putting everything in a big commons, get to it. That's the right way to fight what you so falsely claim is an "injustice".

Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

Uh, when they filled out the form to register the political party, they chose the words that were put in the box. I didn't fill out the form. The RIAA didn't fill out the form. You can't blame the MPAA for doing it.

They chose the name because they thought it was cool to associate themselves with rough men who take what they want by force. It's called branding. They made their bed. They should sleep in it.

Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

Bobby bobby bobby... The name is now full of symbolism. It's just like Anonymous (a term you also don't seem to understand). Both encompass ideas, ideals and beliefs. But carry on living in denial if it's comfortable for you.

All parties were once young and inexperienced. All companies were once young and inexperienced. You were once young but are still inexperienced. Once those experienced cannot solve the problems anymore it's time for the young to kick in with all their reckless crazy ideas that may become old, proven and established some day.

If you ask them about the piracy off of Somalia, they blather on with philosophical distinctions that just confuse many people.

The question is misguided and pretty dishonest coming from you and the rest of the MAFIAA loons. It's pretty clear they aren't your usual pirate or they'd be in jail and hiding. The first distinction is obvious. The confusion is when you ask them what are they here for. Because it's not particularly clear yet. This world is pregnant with the new world bobby. Most of us don't know what lies ahead.

Why are they so obsessed with taking the hard work of artists while they're quite willing to respect the hard work of the farmer?

Another dishonest and misguided question, bobby. Nobody ever said that. And it's pretty impossible, nobody can take a work from an artist, it'll always be there. They advocate the spread of culture and a change in how things are done in the IP realm. They can't build a new business model for you in this new era, bobby.

They can't have it both ways.

Yes they can and it's proven by multiple artists such as Louis CK, Amanda Palmer, Minecraft devs etc etc etc.

They're immature fools who just want attention.

That actually applies to you.

They have no real plan for helping people work together.

Indeed, as I said before, this world is changing. They are proposing we work together to find new ways of dealing with the copyright issue (and others such as freedom, the intertubes and so on).

They just cling to the idea that somehow everyone will keep creating music and art even if it's immediately placed in the public domain.

Actually, people create despite copyright. They always did and always will. It's not only an idea, it's a norm, a rule. Empirically proven.

Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

I'm sure the UK Labour party says that they believe they're supporting Labour. They don't get up and say, "Oh my. That's just our name. Don't get confused by what we say. Don't go thinking that we're trying to be consistent."

And the same goes for the US Democratic Party.

Only the Pirate Party seems to think that the rules don't apply to them. But that's always been their problem.

Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

No matter what name they gave them self's people like you would have simply called them the "Pirate Party" in an attempt to discredit them anyway.

You are going to spout the same rubbish regardless but by naming them self's the Pirate Party they remove some of the power of the name to be used to mock. It even forces people like you to have to engage is a debate on the meaning of the term pirate and where it comes from.

You are arguing semanticist of a name you'd have other wise been hurling as an insult.

Names come to reflect what they are used to name not the other way around. "The President of the United Sates" is a title that was originally intended to be modest, almost insultingly so, to keep egos in check. President is now a title that is used by any number of world leaders and carries a vastly different meaning than when it was first used.

So while you spin your wheels over something that is effectively meaningless because your upset they took your insult away from you they will get on with doing what they want to do.

Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

You are missing the point bobby. The name has a symbolism attached to it. It started with digital goods "infringement" or something but it evolved into much more complex ideas. But you can't see past your copyright worshiping can you?

Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

The RIAA and MPAA turned the words "Pirate" and "Piracy" into loaded language like a politician would do when he's trying to get his way. The Pirate Party is taking it and running with it, and I'm pretty sure they understood the risks of doing so.

The other thing is, bob, that if the WIPO has a valid reason for not giving observer status to the Pirate Party, they should state it or they're making themselves look scared, and that's not encouraging for the public or for creating a rapport.

Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

Re: Re: Re:

NO, they are scared of small minority groups who use the guise of democarcy to try to ram their agenda down everyone else's throats. In the US, it's groups like the NRA, Tabacco, and in older times things like the Moral Majority. These would all be political parties in the US if there was more than a two party system.

The minority taking up the time of the majority. That's the real problem with small time parties like PP.

Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

You act like copyright law is set in stone. Laws can be changed. The pirate party is working to make that change. Just because you don't like the change they want to make doesn't mean it's not legitimate. They're not advocating breaking the law - they're advocating changing the law.

And if someone wants to start the racist party, let them. We'll see how many votes they get.

Re:

Have you read the whole thing? It actually talks about the potential market out there.

While the scale of downloading is a cause for concern, the growing interest in digital music offers a massive potential revenue stream for all areas of the entertainment industry - and understanding the data behind it will be vital.

Also, it's from CNBC. I'm actually surprised it's less biased towards the MAFIAA agenda than I thought it would be.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

I find it enlightening to have such people here. Forces you to review your knowledge and sometimes may sprout new and insightful thoughts and comments from others. I'd like them to be more creative on their clueless replies though.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The minority taking up the time of the majority. That's the real problem with small time parties like PP."

That is a dangerous way of running a Democracy. That basically guarantees that only the perceived majority will be represented, regardless of the fact that it might not be.

Look at SOPA and ACTA. It was basically a sure thing. "Everyone" was for it...that is, until people were actually allowed to take a good look at the text. Then, your perceived majority crumbled, and it wasn't a majority any more.

If we truly want a Democracy to work, we need to give EACH AND EVERY point of view a chance to present itself and a chance to be heard. Because that IS the premise of Democracy: equal chances for everyone.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Just arrived from Mars? I wonder how the minorities are getting victories everywhere in several levels of the nations heh. Also, are you implying that minorities should not be listened to? Really?

These would all be political parties in the US if there was more than a two party system.

The US are in this dead end nowadays because of this bi-partisan system. Take Brazil for example. We have tiny parties and they are mostly ignored and can't really do much to change anything. Now the Pirate Party in Germany has scored some pretty major victories and they are growing elsewhere. An irrelevant party would just be ignored.

and in older times things like the Moral Majority

Welcome to the Unite States Moral Police. It is happening in your two party system, Einstein.

The minority taking up the time of the majority.

Again implying that. So since the American Indians are a minority now they should just be ignored? U mad bro?

Re:

It is actually a very valid point. Mostly it is a question of you finding the right interest organisation who supports the right lobbying group for you.

In reality it is very hard to find at the moment because many of the less IPR-reliant groups are starting to move away from the "copyright=good and piracy=bad"-way of thinking and turning towards the more pragmatic let copyright be as it is at the moment and wait for the dinos to die. Many interest organisations from business has both opinions represented and they are not sure what leg to stand on. Just tell them your more nuanced opinions and you will be able to change quite a lot at the moment.

Re:

Hmm...so a certain place in the USA has a high proportion of its people using Bittorent to download music.

Smart thing to do here would be to release as much music as possible, create "legitimate" torrents and find ways to monetise on that.
Instead, no, you insist on having a repeat of the early days of the VCR, where the old guard refused as much as possible to change and adapt to the new technology.

Seems like they are only interested in the views of intelectual property supporters. this is always the problem of such organizations, the end up supporting a single point of view. This applies to political perties, their basic point of view is pre-defined.

Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

And what if you didn't want a copyright in the first place? There is no official mechanism enshrined in law to permit that. Technically speaking, the CC licenses are not fit for purpose, as the works still do not go itno the public domain.

Re: Re:

It's the idiots claiming that this is a pirate apologist blog that completely miss each time Mike says that these labels need to do exactly this.

If that AC was smart, he'd have read the entire article and paid extra attention to the part where Gregory Head says he's excited to reveal this information so that the labels can use to to better serve their customers.

Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

As someone who has been involved in both PPI and a domestic Pirate Party, the criticism of the name is a common one.

For people in the UK, the comeback is simple. For a while one of the main parties in this country was the "Tory Party" (and "tory" is still slang for what that party became). The word "tory" referred to Irish briggands. Originally it was hurled at people of a particular political leaning, but they embraced it, and took it as their own. Sound familiar?

The Tory Party's main opposition, the "Whig" Party (who were sort of the liberals, but died out). Their name is slightly better, and refers to Scottish cattle drivers. Again, originally used as an insult.

But a name is just a name. I have no problems calling myself a Pirate. If anything, I have more problems calling myself a politician.

Re:

Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

What injustice? It's an insult to the real victims around the world to use the word "injustice" to describe the fact that some Hollywood studio won't let you watch their movie without paying for it.*

It would be nice if people could get over this idea that if there are two "wrongs" at the same time, only the "more serious" should be noted or dealt with. Yes, there are some very serious injustices in the world. There are also some smaller ones, and 21st century copyright laws are an example of this.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people are capable of caring about more than one thing at once; it is possible to campaign against "small" injustices while also caring about the "big" ones.

*I could argue about the details of this point, how it fits with Pirate policies and so on, but that is a bit too troll-feedy for now.

The Pirate party suffers from a negative connotation of the word 'Pirate'. They need to change their name to some like the Peoples Party of the Internet Society or PPIS for short - of course you could have the PPIS party for the government group.

Re:

No spin at all:
"Assuming an album contains 10 tracks" ASS_U_ME
And:
"While not all music available on BitTorrent is unauthorized, the majority of songs delivered through the system are not licensed."

So it is incomplete data.

So unless they have a way to tell exactly what songs were or were not "legal" I wouldn't put too much stock on those numbers. They are just guessing.

Did you even read the article? I dont think you did because as Mike points out ALL THE TIME:
The DMI also found that unlicensed file-sharing has decreased slightly over the past six months in territories where services such as Spotify and iTunes are available. Meanwhile, the previous market-leader MySpace, is now being overtaken by Soundcloud as the site with the most streams for new and breaking acts.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

Uh, no. All I believe is that they want to be viewed as a democratic republic. It's a perfectly fair assumption. And that's why I believe that the pirate party wants people to believe that they're pirates who support more piracy.

Now you're right that politicians often don't follow through on their promises and-- what do you know-- the Pirate Party is already announcing that they're not going to deliver pure piracy. But that's different.

If they don't want to be thought of as pirates, they should choose a different name.

Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

"What injustice? It's an insult to the real victims around the world to use the word "injustice" to describe the fact that some Hollywood studio won't let you watch their movie without paying for it."

Nobody have ever stated that's it's an injustice that Hollywood won't let you watch their movies without paying for it, because in case you haven't noticed, they're completely incapable of stopping people from doing that. It may be stupid on their part to try to control how people consume content, but nobody's ever said it's an injustice. You made that up all on your own.

As usual you're completely missing the actual injustices that people are complaining about, things like the massive abuses of copyright law by rightsholders, the erosions of basic human rights in a completely ineffectual attempt to stop copyright infringement, and the massively disproportional influence a relatively tiny industry has on government decision-making.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for

"And that's why I believe that the pirate party wants people to believe that they're pirates who support more piracy. "

Then you're an idiot who hasn't understood a single thing they've said.

"Now you're right that politicians often don't follow through on their promises and-- what do you know-- the Pirate Party is already announcing that they're not going to deliver pure piracy."

So, you made a half-assed assumption about their policies based on one interpretation of their name, and now you're trying to pretend that they lied/failed because they aren't delivering the promises they only made in your own head. I bet you've never read that actual positions or manifestos, let alone their real promises, have you?

Another example of why you fail even the most basic logical tests on this issue, and why you will probably never understand the real arguments being made.